eyeball Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Good, so what portions of C-51 is the SCC going to have to protect you from? Probably the one's the CCLA and BCCLA et al challenge in court would be my guess. That's been the pattern so far. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Probably the one's the CCLA and BCCLA et al challenge in court would be my guess. That's been the pattern so far. And which ones are they going to challenge? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 But you just said: I fail to see your point. Illegal arrest is just what it says, no matter which cop does it. Wouldnt you think. Quote
eyeball Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 And which ones are they going to challenge? Those which are implemented by police. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I fail to see your point. Illegal arrest is just what it says, no matter which cop does it. Wouldnt you think. It was your point with regards to undercover police...... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Those which are implemented by police. Such as? Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Which rights? Privacy rights, mostly. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
eyeball Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Such as? I'll leave that up to the SC to determine, something I'm quite certain they'll be doing soon enough. Edited February 12, 2015 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Right, so why are you fearful of the legislation, the same legislation also supported by the Liberals? I dont like the legislation regardless of who supports it. However I would point out that both Liberal and NDP said they wanted to see much better oversight before they would support it. Thats a possible reasonable compromise. Harper droning on about it is Jihadis who will take away our freedom and not his law is the same sort of nonsense he is known to use. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I dont like the legislation regardless of who supports it. However I would point out that both Liberal and NDP said they wanted to see much better oversight before they would support it. Thats a possible reasonable compromise. Harper droning on about it is Jihadis who will take away our freedom and not his law is the same sort of nonsense he is known to use. The Liberals have stated they will support the legislation as is.......... Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Privacy rights, mostly. Which ones? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 The Liberals have stated they will support the legislation as is.......... He said he will bring forth the discussion of increased oversight as an election issue. Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Which ones? Section 8 of the Charter. In the US, the 4th Amendment. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Section 8 of the Charter. In the US, the 4th Amendment. How so? Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 He said he will bring forth the discussion of increased oversight as an election issue. After his party has already supported the legislation.......... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I would add section 9 as well. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I don’t see how posing as protestors is any different than police posing as would “Johns”, drug users, black market firearms buyers/sellers or would be terrorists etc…….. The idea, as has actually already been stated, is that they can pose as protesters, provoke violence and cause the police to shut down the protest under false pretenses. There are distinctions on what can and cannot be done by undercover officers (likewise intelligence officers) so I fail to see the cause of concern……… I guess you haven't read this thread then. They were found by a judge to have acted improperly. Again, this is with the existing legislation - and you haven't acknowledged that I'm stating that. The reason that I am stating that is: we're at the point where we can't protect the rights of the innocent anymore, nor can we prevent against terrorism. We have a system that might be able to do both, or neither depending on how it's implemented. So it doesn't matter. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) The idea, as has actually already been stated, is that they can pose as protesters, provoke violence and cause the police to shut down the protest under false pretenses. Provoke violence and to commit violence are two different things………just as an undercover cop can’t kill a person well undercover. I don’t see any Rights violations by the State if police infiltrate radical groups at protests, and in turn, those they are with start torching police cars and smashing Starbucks windows…….and riot police arrest them. I guess you haven't read this thread then. They were found by a judge to have acted improperly I guess I missed that part, I'll reread the thread. Again, this is with the existing legislation - and you haven't acknowledged that I'm stating that. The reason that I am stating that is: we're at the point where we can't protect the rights of the innocent anymore, nor can we prevent against terrorism. We have a system that might be able to do both, or neither depending on how it's implemented.So it doesn't matter. What Rights were violated, under our present laws, by police infiltrating protest groups? Likewise, how would Bill C-51 curtail said assumed violated rights further? If police infiltrate a biker gang or terror cell, are they also violating the Rights of criminals and terrorists? Edited February 12, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I guess you haven't read this thread then. They were found by a judge to have acted improperly. Again, this is with the existing legislation - and you haven't acknowledged that I'm stating that. The reason that I am stating that is: we're at the point where we can't protect the rights of the innocent anymore, nor can we prevent against terrorism. We have a system that might be able to do both, or neither depending on how it's implemented. So it doesn't matter. I went back and read the members posts, but don't see anywhere where your points were confirmed......it sounded more akin to Alex Jones tin-foil hat padding.......are you talking about a different thread perhaps? Quote
Michael Hardner Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Likewise, how would Bill C-51 curtail said assumed violated rights further? You can stop asking me that now. I've already stated that I don't think the new bill will make a difference. If police infiltrate a biker gang or terror cell, are they also violating the Rights of criminals and terrorists? http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3919 The G20 clampdown was illegal, and done under existing laws. So, it doesn't matter. If you ask me again then I will just state this again. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/3919 The G20 clampdown was illegal, and done under existing laws. So, it doesn't matter. If you ask me again then I will just state this again. Your link is broken...... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 I went back and read the members posts, but don't see anywhere where your points were confirmed......it sounded more akin to Alex Jones tin-foil hat padding.......are you talking about a different thread perhaps? Ever heard of Mark Fenton. He was TO police supt. charged with 5 counts of unlawful arrests. One cop has been convicted of assault. Ever heard the term kettling. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 (edited) Ever heard of Mark Fenton. He was TO police supt. charged with 5 counts of unlawful arrests. One cop has been convicted of assault. Ever heard the term kettling. Were they both charged because they conducted lawful or unlawful acts? Edited February 12, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Where they both charged because they conducted lawful or unlawful acts? Let me give you a clue, there is a reason they call it unlawful arrest. I hope you are aware that assault is also illegal. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 12, 2015 Report Posted February 12, 2015 Let me give you a clue, there is a reason they call it unlawful arrest. I hope you are aware that assault is also illegal. So that would counter Micheal's suggestion that our current laws can violate Canadian's Rights.....That the two officers were charged is a demonstration that our current laws work as advertised........so, what changes with C-51? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.